유족급여및장의비부지급처분취소
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Details of the disposition;
A. On December 1, 1969, the deceased B (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”) served as the electric train from the Korea Coal Corporation’s Do Mining Center from December 1, 1969 to October 21, 1994. On November 13, 2002, the result of the precise diagnosis of pneumoconiosis was judged Type 1 (type 1/1), and the Korea Workers’ Compensation and Welfare Service’s Thai Hospital, and the Gangwon Yansan Hospital, while receiving medical care at the time of the death diagnosis report, the direct death on December 1, 2013 was determined as the heart, the middle-line event, and the preceding death.
B. Around December 2013, the Plaintiff, a wife of the Deceased, demanded the Defendant to pay bereaved family benefits and funeral expenses on the ground that the deceased died as a heart due to pneumoconiosis and constitutes occupational accidents. However, on April 4, 2014, it was difficult to recognize the causal relationship between the deceased’s death and pneumoconiosis. Accordingly, the Plaintiff was determined as the bereaved family’s benefits and funeral funeral expenses on the ground that it was difficult to recognize the causal relationship between the deceased’
(hereinafter “Prior Disposition”). The Plaintiff filed a petition for review seeking revocation of prior disposition, but the petition for review was dismissed on August 20, 2014.
C. On October 14, 2014, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant seeking the revocation of the prior disposition (Seoul Administrative Court No. 2014Guhap18060, hereinafter “prior action”), and withdrawn the lawsuit on April 1, 2015.
In other words, the Plaintiff again demanded the Defendant to pay survivors’ benefits and funeral expenses on the ground that the deceased’s death constitutes occupational accidents. However, on July 1, 2016, it is difficult to recognize the causal relationship between the deceased’s death and pneumoconiosis. Accordingly, the Plaintiff was determined as survivors’ benefits and funeral funeral expenses.
(hereinafter referred to as the "disposition of this case"). 【Unsatisfying the ground for recognition】 【Unsatisfying the dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, 8, 11 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion ① The Deceased’s serious respiratory distress on November 12, 2013.